Mini Ice Age Coming in 2030

[Joes Place]

I don't recall you ever asking me that before. If you did, I assume I answered the way I am answering now: If you read what I wrote, you would realize that contrary to claiming special knowledge, I have repeatedly stressed that I do NOT have the training or education to comment on the science.

What I wrote that seems to have set you off this time was simple history: The Earth's climate has changed frequently in the past at times when humans couldn't possibly have been responsible. Do you "deny" that? And the obvious question this history raises is why this time it HAS to be all the fault of human activity.

This is the equivalent of defending the Colorado theater shooter, by asserting that "people have been dying of natural causes for centuries, so how are you so sure this was a mass murder"?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I don't recall you ever asking me that before. If you did, I assume I answered the way I am answering now: If you read what I wrote, you would realize that contrary to claiming special knowledge, I have repeatedly stressed that I do NOT have the training or education to comment on the science.

What I wrote that seems to have set you off this time was simple history: The Earth's climate has changed frequently in the past at times when humans couldn't possibly have been responsible. Do you "deny" that? And the obvious question this history raises is why this time it HAS to be all the fault of human activity.

That's it? Seriously? Forests burned long before there was a human on the planet...but if all the evidence for today's fire points to arson you deny it because forest fires have occurred naturally in the past? Do you understand how idiotic your statement is?

Probably not. But now you should. Stop using this dodge - it makes you look monumentally, immensely, stupendously stupid. Maybe you should just stop commenting on something you're too lazy to try and comprehend.

 

[Lone Clone]

That's it? Seriously? Forests burned long before there was a human on the planet...but if all the evidence for today's fire points to arson you deny it because forest fires have occurred naturally in the past? Do you understand how idiotic your statement is?

Probably not. But now you should. Stop using this dodge - it makes you look monumentally, immensely, stupendously stupid. Maybe you should just stop commenting on something you're too lazy to try and comprehend.

So you can't answer the question. Color me unshocked.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So you can't answer the question. Color me unshocked.

I did answer it. You just failed to comprehend tha answer. The climate has changed in the past. Forests burned in the past. The evidence shows that the current warming is largely attributable to man. You choose to ignore that evidence based on the fact that the climate has changed in the past absent any human input. By your logic, you would deny arson in a forest fire even if the evidence for it was clear. And you would justify it by saying you're not an arson investigator and don't understand the science behind it.

Do you understand how incredibly stupid your stance is now? Probably not. And I'm certainly not shocked.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't recall you ever asking me that before. If you did, I assume I answered the way I am answering now: If you read what I wrote, you would realize that contrary to claiming special knowledge, I have repeatedly stressed that I do NOT have the training or education to comment on the science.

What I wrote that seems to have set you off this time was simple history: The Earth's climate has changed frequently in the past at times when humans couldn't possibly have been responsible. Do you "deny" that? And the obvious question this history raises is why this time it HAS to be all the fault of human activity.

Because that's what the people with the special knowledge and training to understand the evidance says is the answer. If you recognize you do not have the credibility to refute the experts, stop trying to refute the experts. Your position is weak here.

 

[Lone Clone]

I did answer it. You just failed to comprehend tha answer. The climate has changed in the past. Forests burned in the past. The evidence shows that the current warming is largely attributable to man. You choose to ignore that evidence based on the fact that the climate has changed in the past absent any human input. By your logic, you would deny arson in a forest fire even if the evidence for it was clear. And you would justify it by saying you're not an arson investigator and don't understand the science behind it.

Do you understand how incredibly stupid your stance is now? Probably not. And I'm certainly not shocked.

I'm not ignoring any evidence. You are the one ignoring the evidence, in the form of history. You would blame the forest fire on arson if the forest had been visited by humans before the fire.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I'm not ignoring any evidence. You are the one ignoring the evidence, in the form of history. You would blame the forest fire on arson if the forest had been visited by humans before the fire.

You can't evaluate the evidence, remember? You don't understand the science, remember? You're in no position to make ANY claims about the evidence, remember? That's your safety...you claim ignorance so you don't have to respond when confronted with evidence.

History ISN'T evidence. Only a liar or an idiot would propose this. That the last ten forest fires were sparked by lightning has absolutely ZERO bearing on the current fire. How you could believe otherwise is a mystery. So investigators gather the evidence and they finally conclude that arson was the cause.

That's when you spring into action. Any discrepancy between the reports of this investigator and that investigator you call evidence of "dishonesty and chicanery". No amount of evidence...no amount of agreement is enough to drive you off that stance. When the clear evidence is presented..."Hey, I'm not an arson investigator. I don't understand the evidence. I don't have a position on what's causing the fire. Don't attack ME.".

Finally, you puke up your incredibly moronic fall-back..."There were forest fires that were caused naturally so you can't prove that THIS fire isn't natural." Rest assured, you are totally transparent.

 

[Lone Clone]

You can't evaluate the evidence, remember? You don't understand the science, remember? You're in no position to make ANY claims about the evidence, remember? That's your safety...you claim ignorance so you don't have to respond when confronted with evidence.

History ISN'T evidence. Only a liar or an idiot would propose this. That the last ten forest fires were sparked by lightning has absolutely ZERO bearing on the current fire. How you could believe otherwise is a mystery. So investigators gather the evidence and they finally conclude that arson was the cause.

That's when you spring into action. Any discrepancy between the reports of this investigator and that investigator you call evidence of "dishonesty and chicanery". No amount of evidence...no amount of agreement is enough to drive you off that stance. When the clear evidence is presented..."Hey, I'm not an arson investigator. I don't understand the evidence. I don't have a position on what's causing the fire. Don't attack ME.".

Finally, you puke up your incredibly moronic fall-back..."There were forest fires that were caused naturally so you can't prove that THIS fire isn't natural." Rest assured, you are totally transparent.

Damn. You saw through my facade. All these months -- years, even -- of me claiming to be a scientist and knowing all the details of this issue, and you were somehow able to arrive at the truth about me.

I think that says a lot about your level of intelligence.

But for the record, I wasn't referring to different experiment results or conclusions when I spoke of dishonesty and chicanery. I was referring to flat-out falsifying the results of research, and jiggering the criteria until they conform to the theory.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Damn. You saw through my facade. All these months -- years, even -- of me claiming to be a scientist and knowing all the details of this issue, and you were somehow able to arrive at the truth about me.

I think that says a lot about your level of intelligence.

But for the record, I wasn't referring to different experiment results or conclusions when I spoke of dishonesty and chicanery. I was referring to flat-out falsifying the results of research, and jiggering the criteria until they conform to the theory.

I never said you claimed to be a scientist...I said claiming that you AREN'T a scientist is your dodge to avoid dealing with the facts.

As for the rest, I already dealt with this falsehood from you. Claims of data falsification are themselves false. Climategate has been investigated by seven different entities and not one has found ANY EVIDENCE of data falsification or "criteria jiggering". Yet, the deniers continue to use it to make that case. Are they lying? Are they guilty of the falsification you claim to abhor? Have you ever called ANY poster out for linking to confirmed liars like Watt or Curry? Why, no, you haven't. But you don;t have a position? Right...tell me another whopper.

So, yes, I see through your facade. It ain't that difficult. As I have repeatedly said, it's crystal clear.

 

[Lone Clone]

I never said you claimed to be a scientist...I said claiming that you AREN'T a scientist is your dodge to avoid dealing with the facts.

As for the rest, I already dealt with this falsehood from you. Claims of data falsification are themselves false. Climategate has been investigated by seven different entities and not one has found ANY EVIDENCE of data falsification or "criteria jiggering". Yet, the deniers continue to use it to make that case. Are they lying? Are they guilty of the falsification you claim to abhor? Have you ever called ANY poster out for linking to confirmed liars like Watt or Curry? Why, no, you haven't. But you don;t have a position? Right...tell me another whopper.

So, yes, I see through your facade. It ain't that difficult. As I have repeatedly said, it's crystal clear.

Not talking exclusively about Climategate. Talking about misrepresenting Chris Landsea's work on hurricanes, for one thing. Talking about the IPCC running its report past contributors, and after they signed off, eliminating sections that qualified and made the conclusion much less definite. Talking about the hockey stick.

But I realize you are frustrated that I won't argue the science. And by the way, do you realize how funny your statement is: You're saying that when I decline to discuss science because I'm not a scientist, it's a "dodge" to avoid discussing science. Uh, yeah..........